F I L E D

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

TENTH CIRCUIT

JUL 10 2002

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

STEVEN KENT BLOOM,

v.

Plaintiff-Appellant,

K. RUHNKE, Kansas Department of

Corrections Administrator, KANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
and STATE OF KANSAS,

No. 02-3032

(D.C. No. 01-CV-3450-GTV)

(D. Kansas)

Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Before EBEL , LUCERO , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal.

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
*

Pro se Plaintiff Stephen Bloom, an inmate at the Lansing Correctional

Facility in Lansing, Kansas (Lansing), appeals the district courts dismissal of
his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291
and affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs complaint centers around Lansings Internal Management Policy
and Procedures 11-101, which restricts inmates from spending more than $30 per
month from their prisoner accounts. By the end of September 2001, Plaintiff had
reached his monthly limit but found himself needing $4.00 to obtain copies of
legal authority from the Kansas University Law Library. On September 24, 2001,
he submitted a Special Purchase Order for the expense, stating that he felt the
$4.00 was a legal expense and therefore exempt from the monthly spending cap.
Prison officials disagreed with Plaintiffs characterization of the expense and
denied his request. On October 1, 2001, he submitted a second request, which
was denied. He appealed the decision to the Lansing Warden and then the Kansas
Secretary of Corrections. The initial denial was affirmed.
Plaintiff filed the present civil action in the District of Kansas on
November 20, 2001, alleging deprivations of his right to free access to the courts
and freedom of speech. The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Such sua sponte
dismissal is permitted under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, although the district court cited
-2-

to 28 U.S.C. 1915 (which did not apply to Plaintiff because he did not file in
forma pauperis).
We review 1915A dismissals de novo. Cf. Perkins v. Kansas Dept of
Corrections, 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999) (noting that, because the
language of 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels that found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
dismissals under that section are also reviewed de novo). [W]e must liberally
construe the allegations of a pro se complaint. Hunt v. Uphoff, 199 F.3d 1220,
1223 (10th Cir. 1999).
We agree with the district court that Plaintiffs claim of denial of access to
the courts fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In Penrod v.
Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir. 1996), we held that a prisoner raising a
denial-of-access claim must show that the denial of legal resources hindered the
prisoners efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous claim. Nowhere in Plaintiffs
complaint does he mention the purpose for which he requires the copies of legal
cases, nor does he allege that Lansings spending cap hindered his efforts to
pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. His claim therefore fails to satisfy Penrod.
We must reverse, however, on Plaintiffs free speech claim. It is well
settled that the First Amendment protects the flow of information to prisoners;
any limitation must reasonably relate to a legitimate penological interest.
Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 959 (9th Cir. 1999); see Mann v. Smith, 796 F.2d
-3-

79, 82-83 (5th Cir. 1986). Defendants may well have a reasonable justification
for limiting how much a prisoner can spend each month on reading materials.
They may be able to demonstrate that justification at trial or through a motion for
summary judgment. But the record is now limited to Plaintiffs complaint, which
we must accept as true. Therefore, we must reverse the district courts dismissal
of this claim and remand for further proceedings.
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court with respect to Plaintiffs
claim of denial of free access to the courts. We REVERSE the district courts
dismissal of Plaintiffs claim for violation of his right of free speech and
REMAND for further proceedings. We also DENY both Appellants Motion to
Strike Appellees Notice of Service of Amendment to Appellees Brief and
Appellees request to dismiss the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge

-4-